Proof of demand is essential to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the amended provisions introducing the offence of offering a bribe as a standalone substantive offence cannot be applied retrospectively.

JUDGMENT :

Bharati H. Dangre, J.

1. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside of proceedings of Special Case No.26 of 2014 as well as the Order dated 08/02/2019 passed by the Special Court for ACB Cases, Greater Mumbai in ACB Special Case No.26 of 2014. The said case was initiated against the petitioners under Section 7 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the PC Act”) on a complaint being filed by one Mr. Mahendra Janrao, who at the relevant time, was a Police Sub Inspector attached to the Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai.

2. The complaint filed by Mr. Mahendra Janrao contained the following imputations:

Dhariwal Industires Limited had filed a Criminal Complaint being CC No.36/I&R/2006 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai against one Mr. Nitesh Wadhwani and one Mr. Ashok Sharma. It was alleged therein that certain Assignment Deeds are manufactured and fabricated by conspiracy to claim proprietorship of the Trademark “Malikchand”. It was prayed that the offences be registered under Section 109, 120B, 193, 196, 200, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). The learned Magistrate passed an order directing the police to conduct investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) and pursuant to which MECR No.16 of 2006 came to be registered. The complainant – Mr. Mahendra Janrao was the person who was entrusted with the investigation of the said MECR and he visited Mandaleshwar Court with a request to handover the original Assignment Deeds for the purpose of investigation.

It is also alleged that he had submitted an Undertaking to the Mandaleshwar Court that he will return the original Assignment Deeds to the Court by 25/01/2007 and pursuant to this Undertaking, the original Assignment Deeds came to be handed over to him. It is then alleged in the complaint that in the morning of 19/01/2007, he received a message that Assistant Commissioner of Police was waiting for him at the Police Station and when he approached the Police Station, the complainant met Accused No.3, who asked him to handover the original Assignment Deeds to the petitioners for which he would be given a bribe of Rs.10,00,000/. It is the case of the complainant that he protested but Accused No.3 assured him that it would entail no trouble for him and thereafter Accused No.3 called the petitioners, who were waiting downstairs and the petitioners told Mr. Mahendra Janrao not to send the original Assignment Deeds to the Mandaleshwar Court but instead he was asked to part the said documents with them or, in the alternative, to destroy them. It was further alleged that the petitioners assured the complainant that they will pay him a bribe of Rs.5,00,000/-and they will manage the Mandaleshwar Court. It was also assured that the amount offered would be brought in the evening.

3. Pursuant to these events taking place, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused persons for offering him bribe and an FIR was registered and the ACB set up a trap along with the trapping team. The trap was scheduled at the Police Station in the evening and when the trapping team along with pancha proceeded at the spot, the petitioners were seated in the cabin in the Police Station. The complainant switched on the recording device and recorded the conversation regarding bribe and the petitioners gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-to the complainant. As pre-decided, the complainant stepped out of the cabin and gave a signal to the Respondent's team, who entered inside the cabin and apprehended the petitioners.

4. As an outcome of the investigation, on 21/10/2010, the Respondent-ACB filed Misc. Application No.64 of 2010 before the Trial Court praying for closure of the case since there was no sufficient evidence against the accused persons to file a chargesheet. The Misc. Application was in the form of a “C”-Summary. It was as